ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No. S- 60 of 2012.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

14.12.2012.

· For orders on office objection.

· For orders on M.A. No. 2773/2012.

· For Katcha Peshi.

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate for applicant.

~~~~

            Applicant/surety Muhammad Yousif Maitlo through this revision application has challenged the order dated 02.8.2012 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, in Sessions case No.427/2011, re; St. v. Zamir Hussain Mirani.

            Concise facts leading to the filing of the instant criminal revision are that applicant Muhammad Yousif Maitlo stood surety for accused Zamir Hussain on 13.9.2011. Bail was granted by the trial Court to accused Zamir Hussain on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount in crime No.89/2011, registered at Police station Civil Line, under Sections 324, 353, 401, 34 PPC.

            After grant of bail to accused, applicant stood surety and accused was released on bail and thereafter absconded away. Surety could not produce the accused. Notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C was issued to the surety. Surety failed to produce the accused. Learned trial Court forfeited the entire bond of surety and imposed full fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, with directions to deposit the same within fifteen days and in case of default the same shall be recovered through writ of attachment. Above order of trial Court is impugned before this Court.

            At the very outset, learned Counsel for the applicant/surety instead of arguing this revision application on merits requested for moderate reduction in the forfeiture amount of surety on the grounds that applicant had stood surety on humanitarian grounds and has gained no monetary benefit in this regard. It is further submitted that surety is a poor person and has large family having no sufficient income source. Learned Counsel relied upon the case of Abdul Sattar v. The State, reported as 2010 Y L R 1946, Abdul Haleem and another v. The State 2003 S C M R 929, and Muhammad Ali and others v. The State 2007 S C M R 575.

            Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State Counsel, present in other cases waives notice of this revision application and recorded no objection if fine amount imposed upon the surety by the trial Court is reduced to some reasonable extent.   

            I have carefully heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.

            In my considered opinion, imposing whole fine amount upon the surety without any proof of malafide or personal gain was not justified in this case. No doubt, there is no legal embargo that amount of bail bond in full cannot be forfeited, but still approach of the Court should be dynamic and progressive oriented while imposing the whole fine upon the surety. Nature of the case, efforts made by the surety to produce the accused and financial position of surety should be taken into consideration. Balance should be kept between undue severity and undue leniency at the time of passing the order. It is submitted that accused absconded away due to enmity with his relatives.

            Thus, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, order of the trial Court is modified and fine of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousands) is reduced to Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousands). Revision is disposed of accordingly. The surety shall deposit Rs.30,000/- before the trial Court within the period of one month, else the same shall be recovered by the trial Court in accordance with law.

Judge